aldo dagnino prioritizing process abb inc. …...abb inc., uscrc - 1 - 11-15-2005 aldo dagnino abb...
TRANSCRIPT
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
1-
11-1
5-20
05
Aldo Dagnino
ABB Inc.US Corporate
Research CenterRaleigh, NC
Prioritizing ProcessImprovement Strategies
in CMMI to OptimizeBusiness Objectives
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
2
ABB Overview� Leader in power and automation
technologies
� Enable utility and industrycustomers to improve performancewhile lowering environmentalimpact
� ABB’s products help operateUtilities, process industries,manufacturing plants, and otherindustries
� Present in over 120 countriesand employs 110,000 people
� First company in the world tosell 100,000 robots
� A vast majority of ABB productshave software & hardwarecomponents
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
3
ABB’s Organizational Structure
Power Products Power Systems
Automation Products Process Automation
Robotics
Corporate Research IS Group Services
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
4
Organizational Structure of ABB
� Power Technologies Segment� Power Systems� Medium-Voltage Products� High Voltage Products� Transformers� Utility Automation Systems
� Automation TechnologiesSegment� Automation Products� Manufacturing Automation� Process Automation
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
5
ABB’s Products
� Power Products
� Power Systems
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
6
ABB’s Products
� Automation Products
� Process Automation
� Robotics
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
7
� ABB Software Process Initiative (ASPI)acts as the Corporate EngineeringProcess Group
� ASPI is composed of members from 2ABB Corporate Research Centers(CRCs):� United States: Raleigh� Sweden: Vasteras
� Responsible for:� Initiation activities� Performance of appraisals� Development of improvement
methodologies,� Evaluation and deployment of pilots within
ABB for CMMI transition, PSP/TSP, etc.� Assisting units in establishing improvement
plans and acting� Collect lessons learned from process
improvement activities
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
8
ABB Corporate EPG Support
USCRC ASPI Team SECRC ASPI Team
Product Development Units in ABB Globally in all Divisions
Local EPG
Support ABB Development Units in their Continuous Improvement
Efforts to establish a culture of product development excellence
Local EPG Local EPG Local EPG Local EPG . . .
CEPG
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
9
Continuous Process Improvement Cycle� Initiate Improvement activity
� Define Medium/Long-term Strategic Improvement Plan (SIP) andidentify organization’s business goals
� Conduct internal CMMI Appraisal (Class B)
� Develop Process Improvement Plan (PIP)� Prioritize process improvement activities using Business Objectives
� Implement PIP
� Monitor ROI
� Re-Initiate
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
10
Results of Internal ABB Class B CMMI Appraisal
� Establishes a baseline inthe organization
� Serves as a basis toidentify processimprovement activities
� Recommended to includethe Measurement andAnalysis Process Area
Practice RD ReqM PP PMC MA SAM Ver PPQA CM
Specific Goal 1
SP 1.1 Medium Medium High High High High High High High
SP 1.2 High Medium High High High High High High High
SP 1.3 High High High High High High High
SP 1.4 High High High High
SP 1.5 High High
SP 1.6 High
SP 1.7 High
Specific Goal 2
SP 2.1 High Medium Medium High High High High High
SP 2.2 High High High High High High High High
SP 2.3 High High High High High High
SP 2.4 High High High
SP 2.5 Medium
SP 2.6 High
SP 2.7 High
Specific Goal 3
SP 3.1 Medium High High High
SP 3.2 Medium High High High
SP 3.3 High High
SP 3.4 High
SP 3.5 Medium
Generic Goal 2
GP 2.1 High Medium High High High High High High High
GP 2.2 Medium High High High High Medium High High High
GP 2.3 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium High High Medium
GP 2.4 High High High High High Medium Medium High High
GP 2.5 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High
GP 2.6 Medium High High High High Medium High High Medium
GP 2.7 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Low
GP 2.8 High High High High High High High High High
GP 2.9 High High High High High High High High High
GP 2.10 Low Low Low Low High Low Low High Low
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
11
GQM Definitions
� Define major goals of the process improvement activity
� Questions derived from goals that must be answered todetermine if the goals are achieved
� Measurements that provide the most appropriateinformation for answering the identified questions
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
12
Example of GQM for Process Measurement
Goals DecreaseDevelopment Costs
Decrease Risks inProjects
Ensure on-timeDelivery
Improve Quality ofProducts
How many defectsproducts have?
Where are defectsintroduced?
In which modules aredefects introduced?
What is the severityof defects?
Number of defectsfound in releasedproducts in firstthree months, by
month
Severity rating foreach defect
Module(s) responsible fordefect(s)
Questions
Metrics
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
13
Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)*� AHP provides a way to prioritize alternatives to satisfy an
organization’s business goals� It represents a decision-making problem in hierarchical structure
and consists of:� A business goal� Criteria to satisfy the business goal� Alternatives to select to achieve the business goal
� The GQM approach can be used to derive tree in AHP
* Golden, B. L., E.A. Wasil, P.T. Harker,“The Analytic Hierarchy Process”,Springer-Verlag, 1989
Goal
Criteria
Alternatives
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
14
AHP Steps
1. Setup criteria from cause of defects
2. Setup alternatives from specific practices
3. Assign weights to criteria
4. Perform pair-wise comparisons of alternativesfor each criterion
5. Determine the priority of alternatives
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
15
Discussion of an Example at ABB
To follow Example please referto provided handouts
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
16
Determine Goal
� Reduce the Cost of Poor Quality
� Reduce the number of defects found at Integration Testing stage
� Reduce rework time
� Reduce cost associated with rework time by $150 kUSD
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
17
Step 1: Set Up Criteria
� Couple of salient known recent issues to theorganization include:� There have been issues with capturing and managing
requirements properly – this issue has been noticed especiallywhen requirements have been provided to supplier
� Quality with primary software sub-contractor has been aproblem lately as well
� Criteria then are developed� Supplier agreements do not always reflect requirements
� Requirements not properly defined
� Requirements not properly managed
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
18
. . . Step 1: Set Up Criteria
� Table of criteria
Criteria
Supplier Agreements do not always reflectrequirementsRequirements not properly definedRequirements not properly managed
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
19
Step 2: Set Up Alternatives
� From the appraisal conducted, thePAs identified at the site as “defectgeneration responsible” include:� RD, REQM, SAM, VER, and CM
� With the above issues in mind, andthe appraisal results identified, thePAs that contribute most to thecriteria identified are established:� SAM, RD, and REQM
� MA will be a “must”
Practice RD ReqM PP PMC MA SAM Ver PPQA CM
Specific Goal 1
SP 1.1 Medium Medium High High High High High High High
SP 1.2 High Medium High High High High High High High
SP 1.3 High High High High High High High
SP 1.4 High High High High
SP 1.5 High High
SP 1.6 High
SP 1.7 High
Specific Goal 2
SP 2.1 High Medium Medium High High High High High
SP 2.2 High High High High High High High High
SP 2.3 High High High High High High
SP 2.4 High High High
SP 2.5 Medium
SP 2.6 High
SP 2.7 High
Specific Goal 3
SP 3.1 Medium High High High
SP 3.2 Medium High High High
SP 3.3 High High
SP 3.4 High
SP 3.5 Medium
Generic Goal 2
GP 2.1 High Medium High High High High High High High
GP 2.2 Medium High High High High Medium High High High
GP 2.3 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium High High Medium
GP 2.4 High High High High High Medium Medium High High
GP 2.5 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High
GP 2.6 Medium High High High High Medium High High Medium
GP 2.7 Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Low
GP 2.8 High High High High High High High High High
GP 2.9 High High High High High High High High High
GP 2.10 Low Low Low Low High Low Low High Low
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
20
. . . Step 2: Set Up Alternatives
� From the PAs identified as mostlikely contributors to the criteria,and referring to the findings afterthe appraisal was conducted, thedescription of recommendationsassociated with specific practicesof the PAs identified are presentedas shown in this slide
Practices Description of Alternatives
RD SP1.1-1, -2Consistently elicit and documentcustomers needs and expectations
RD SP 1.2Consistently develop and documentMRS
RD SP2.1Consistently document ERS andestablish link between ERS and MRS
RD SP3.2
Consistently establish and maintaindefinition of required functionality inERS
RD SP 3.3Analyze completeness and sufficiencyof requirements ina consistent fashion
RD SP 3.5Consistenlty validate productrequirements
RM SP1.4Establish and maintain bi-directionaltraceability
RM SP1.5
Identify and document inconsistenciesbetween work products andrequirements
SAM SP1.2Select Suppliers based on their abilityto satisfy requirements
SAM SP 2.1Review COTS products to ensure theysatisfy requirements
SAM SP2.3Accept acquired product verifying itmeets requirements
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
21
Step 3: Assign Weights to Criteria
� Weights are assigned to the criteria identified in Step 1 and they areprioritized accordingly
Criteria Weight
Requirements not properly defined 0.5Supplier Agreements do not always reflectrequirements 0.3Requirements not properly managed 0.2
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
22
Step 4: Pair-wise Comparison of Alternatives for each Criteria
� Using the AHP method, and considering the criteria, selected PAs, andobservations, a prioritization of practices per criteria is performed.
� Prioritization for “Requirements not properly defined criteria are shownbelow
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
23
Step 5: Calculate Priority and Expected Economic Impact
� After prioritizing alternative solutions by criteria, the method allows toprioritize all alternatives analyzed.
©AB
B In
c., U
SCR
C -
24
Questions ?